gets it all wrong:
Energy isn't power
|The July 30th issue of Science
is largely devoted to energy --- if not to getting their facts straight.
Alexander Hellemans (page 679) says, "Amersfoort [in Holland] gets much
less sunshine than the world average of 1700 [sic] watts per square
meter: Nieuwland's homes should be bathed in about 1500
[sic] watts worth of energy [sic] per square meter.
From this Vlek expects they should glean as much as 128 [sic] watts
of energy [sic] per square meter, thanks to nifty PV cells that
respond best to light reflected [sic] by clouds."
The sunlight ariving at the upper atmosphere of the earth has an intensity of about 1350 watts per square meter facing the sun. At the surface on a clear day at noon on the equator, the solar intensity is about 950 watts per square meter. In the US, the average, around the clock, around the year solar intensity is about 200 watts per square meter. Holland, which lies farther north, might receive an average of 150 (comparing with Hartford's 160 watts per square meter). What's a factor of ten among friends?
The reader may consult several files at this website: Solar IntensityWindmills Windmills in Vermont Firewood Excellent Forests Wood in US History High-Yield Trees Ethanol from Corn More about Ethanol Hydropower Scientific Ignorance among Educationalists Support for nuclear power among real scientists Present Status of Nuclear Power The Hydrogen Economy Ridiculous Solar Predictions from the Past
(It is worth noting that the editors of Science published gung-ho pro-solar papers, but did not publish a single paper that favored nuclear energy or even predicted that it would be a relevant part of the energy mix in the future. Such is the lot of the numerically challenged.)
To main Energy Advocate Index
The Energy Advocate